🔗 Share this article

A PI central to the lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex and several claimants against the publisher of the popular tabloid has claimed his signature on an prior witness statement was a “counterfeit”, the superior court has heard.

The investigator, connected to the most severe claims of unlawful information gathering made by multiple high-profile figures including the music icon and Doreen Lawrence, disavowed his alleged statement, saying it was “completely false”.

Background of the Purported Confession

The private eye had supposedly asserted in a testimonial from 2021 that he and his associates gathered data by accessing voicemails, tapping landline phones and placing listening devices in cars. He also allegedly indicated he had worked on behalf of the Sunday publication.

The media company is alleged by the claimants of performing or hiring for illicit operations such as employing PIs to position surveillance equipment inside cars, deceptively obtaining personal files and intercepting personal discussions. The defendant rejects the allegations and is defending the lawsuit.

Withdrawal and Fresh Claims

Five of the plaintiffs have told the court they initiated the lawsuit against the publisher based on evidence apparently acquired by Burrows.

Burrows had previously retracted his supposed testimony in last year. In a new detailed witness statement made on a recent date, and disclosed by the court on this week, he reiterated his disavowal, stating he had never performed any illegal activity on behalf of the company.

In the new statement, he stated he did “fail to acknowledge” the alleged testimonial on that date”. He said he was of the opinion it was “drafted by someone else”, that the “signature is not mine”, and did reject the truthfulness of much of the contents”.

Burrows stated: “I fail to identify the prior testimony of 16 August 2021 and I think that my autograph on that document is a forgery. A lot of it is not written in my style of speaking. Moreover, the contents of the statement are substantially false.”

He stated further that he had “never” carried out work for the Mail On Sunday or the daily tabloid, with the exception of one task concerning Sir Richard Branson that “did not involve any illegal activity”.

Context of the Initial Statement

Burrows claimed he was on powerful painkillers after a significant attack, and engaging in heavy drinking, when he was reached out to by Graham Johnson, a informant found guilty of voicemail interception, who wanted support with investigation on allegations of interception against media outlets.

He was introduced to a associate, Dan Waddell, who was referred to as a “paralegal” and was paid a sum a instance for advice.

His statement said he was informed allegations against publications were expected to settle without trial, as the publications did not want the attention or financial burden of a court case, and were referred to to him as a “ideal scheme” and a “lucrative opportunity”.

Burrows, who said he had discontinued being employed for publications in that year, said he had informed Johnson “a hundred times that the publisher were not one of my clients”.

Current Court Status

The witness was initially a testifier for the claimants, which additionally comprises Elizabeth Hurley and others, but is now the focus of debates about if he will be summoned as a witness for the court case.

A barrister, for the publisher, requested the court to permit him to question the witness, while David Sherborne, for the claimants, made an petition to call his evidence as secondhand information.

The presiding officer granted Sherborne one week to determine if he desired to request a witness summons to summon the witness, and informed him if Burrows gave testimony that was inconsistent with the testimony they had acquired, then he could request to regard him as “hostile”.

A additional preliminary proceeding in the legal action is projected to take place before the end of the year.